and if you're offended by the word twat, but not by making fun of mentals, i would not like to live in your world.
bernard manning used to say nigger and paki a lot, but just because some over paid comedian says something, it does not make it right or acceptable.

Wayland's use of the term was not, as I understand it, about those with mental illnesses; rather a description of people who hold ridiculous beliefs such as dowsing and other forms of superstition/old wives' tales.

Arthur I would respectfully suggest that you are too close to this, the term is not being used to demean your son. Don't personalise stuff, it only makes you angry over nothing and you get nowhere. Your emotional reaction is a sign of an underlying issue that you are really annoyed with.

We all have our 'weak spots' or 'buttons' that are easily pressed. My own personal 'comedy code' might suggest it's OK to mock people for what they do, but not to villify them for being black, or ginger-haired, or suffering from some mental illness or handicap. On the other hand, the best defense for a joke is that it's actually funny; too many 'offensive' jokes are merely offensive, nothing more. I understand, too, that people may mock the things I hold most dear, or a difficult mental health problem (I'm a sufferer too...), but I can take it. The line we draw isn't inscribed in stone; it's written in the sand...

Arthur, You are probably venting your spleen in the wrong direction. You must have noticed that "poking the mentals" is this week's neat-o. The phrase "poking the mentals with sticks" was coined some time ago and referred to antagonising believers of new aged woo.
In our family, episodes of mental illness are usually referred to as being mad or going mental. They are treated with the same levity and openess as bouts of diarrhoea. Not as something to be ashamed of. I have no issue with using "Mentals".

EDIT <originally started some time ago but delayed while I worked out how to spell diarrhoea. I almost just put "the shits">

I’ve been pondering this. As if anyone asked. Here are some incomplete thoughts:

‘Mentals’ comes from the same tradition as retards. It’s a word that sparks frisson of naughtiness from using a term considered unacceptable in nice company. He’s a mental, a retard, a bit spazzy. Y’know, a bit of a Joey Deacon. Snigger. When the spastics Society changed its name to Scope, boys in my school started sticking their tongues under their bottom lip and saying the new name the same way they’d say spaz. Got big laughs. But of course they weren’t really talking about the physically or mentally disabled, just someone who’d done something a bit stupid, so that was OK. Kids eh?

Nothing intrinsically wrong with being offensive. Nothing intrinsically wrong with being offended. They’re just responses to what’s happening around you. In both cases the merit of your action or reaction depends on what you’re being offensive or offended about.

Comedy shouldn’t be censored. At times comedy should be angry, or point out hypocrisy. You’ve got to ask yourself what’s motivating me, what’s my point?

If you’re using words that have first come into common use to stigmatise or isolate a group of society some people don’t like, or understand, or are afraid of, just to get a cheap laugh in a different context you’ve got to look at yourself and say c’mon, surely I can do better than that...

I remember Partridge yelling about mentalists. It was funny. Partridge is a pretty awful human being. It’s the kind of awful term he’d use. Because something’s been funny in one context doesn’t make it suitable for use elsewhere.

Alf Garnett could complain about ‘coons’ and get a laugh. The laugh was from how terrible he is, plus some laughter for the sheer unacceptability of the term and its taboo value. Doesn’t mean you can use it where you like without being considered a pretty obnoxious human being.

This is probably a greyer term than flat-out racist language but still it's not very kind. And it's nice to be nice.

WOW, I love a good argument, and this one is fucking menta... Of a disposition which is not medically diagnosed or recognised yet seen as slightly outside of the norm, Making it standout as Different in what can be seen by some as a weird way.

im really not into the in jokes and phrases on here, i suppose i dont spend enough time in the chat room.

and justifying it by saying steve coogan said it?

to be honest, my post was intended as just a general swipe at gervaise, of which there can never be enough, in my opinion.
that wayland took it personally is not my fault.
and tripod, yes, i agree, a good defence is that the joke is funny.
it seems that i am alone in finding wayland unfunny.

If I find something unfunny, or offensive, I generally move on... in the knowledge that there'll be something less funny and more offensive along any minute. I also catch myself laughing at things that my calm, rational self suggests aren't really funny at all... but someone hits your funny bone, you burst out laughing... and there you are. That same rational thinking wants satire to be aimed at those who deserve to be prodded with sharp sticks, rather than, say, people who are overweight, or foreign, or talk funny. Then, out of the corner of your eye, you see Eric Pickles, and rationality flies out the window...

I find Gervais highly offensive but only because he is the unfunniest human being to walk this planet. I suffer from all sorts of mental issues and I wasn't the slightest bit offended.

Might just be in my part of the world but I've never heard "mentals" used in the same way as "spaz" or anything like that, I would have thought it was more of an "eejit" as opposed to a medical condition. But hey what do I know.

I've been unhappy in the past about Dunblane posts so I understand where being close to the topic personally can skew your view of what's funny. But being a regular NB reader and a huge fan of Wayland's stuff I'm positive he meant no offence to anyone. Anyway, 'nuff said, I agree with Qox please just don't take it personally.

Lots of chances to be offended
Now in its 11th week. Where have you been?

Just to add more grist to the mill: When Maddy was too weak to walk very well any more we both referred to her as a "Spacker" and the disabled parking spaces as "Spacker spots". It was a bit like our private joke especially when other people felt they should be offended. Not many laughs with cancer, so you've got to take them when you can.

These days I understood the word ‘mentals’ was used to describe people like us - you and me and anybody else taking part in threads like this. People who take part in phone-ins or populate chatrooms or want their opinions heard in on-line debates. Disqus.
Idiots, half-wits, fools, numpties, dweebs, buffoons, NB contributors
That’s certainly how my nephews use it...I’m pretty sure they don’t associate it with mental illness
Word meanings are constantly changing. I don’t think people use the word as they may have done 20-30 years ago.
Geek...once used as a derisory term but now a term of endearment
Celebrity...once used to describe someone glitzy from the world of showbiz but now used to describe talentless nonentities.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if a great many Newsbiscuit contributors suffer from some sort of mental illness.
I was advised to try writing....especially comedy...as a relief for my particular condition. It doesn’t matter if the results are any good or not - just doing it is remedy enough. I like to think it helps.
We did have a contributor a while back who came here looking for friendship and perhaps therapy too.. But sadly, we didn’t handle that situation very well at the time. Not our finest moment.
Surely ‘mental’ is meant to be a harmless comedy word these days
Unless of course you’re mental
Then it’s not.
I don't think anybody sets out to offend...but if you are offended by something on here then it's probably more to do with your own sensibilities rather than the perceived offence.

In my part of the world, 'mental' has nothing to do with mental health issues, nor any developmental or chromosomal conditions.

It is used to refer to someone who is known for their wild, reckless or dangerous behaviour, as a measure of how angry someone is/was, or just as a description for extreme actions in general.

Never, ever is it used in the same way as arthur seems to think. And if we're going to be talking about who's more deserving to be offended by it, well, I've suffered post-natal depression, and depression, both my parents have suffered clinical depression, with one being so severely ill, suicide was attempted, my late aunt suffered from Cerebral Palsy, and a family member and two friends are bi-polar. Is that sufficient qualification to comment?

I didn't find it offensive. The fact that I added my own take on a similar vein shows the manner in which I interpreted it.

You're offended, fair enough. You've told us. If you don't like it, fine. You are entirely entitled to your opinion. But shut up about it now, and stop trying to justify your hissy fit.

i must admit i dont like the term mental,either. i think its on a par with the way 'spastic' was used in the 70s and 80s. if a piece uses this term,i wouldnt read it-thats my choice. i also happen to think its use demeans those who use it. i understand tho,that some folk are arguing here that its perceived meaning is changing-like i guess 'gay' and 'retard' are now.

i dont think anyone can 'say it is ok-its just retard that is questionable'-that is just your opinion. i would disagree.

i accept that i am in a very small minority-i usually am-but there you go. im sure it was a funny piece anyway.